Cameras Looking for a new Lens

[jack]

i am currently looking around for a second lens (at around 70-300mm) for my sony A200
i don't want to get any high-end lens, but it should still offer a good picture at the max zoom
so is there anyone who has used the below lenses ?

Sigma 70-300mm 4-5,6 DG MACRO Objektiv für Minolta: Amazon.de: Elektronik

Tamron AF 70-300mm 4-5,6 Di LD Macro 1:2 digitales: Amazon.de: Elektronik

Sony SAL-75300 4,5-5,6 / 75-300mm Sony Objektiv: Amazon.de: Elektronik

 

[Germaniac]

nooo idea on those particular lenses sorry. they are all very similarly specced, however, and i suspect the difference you are paying for the Sony is brand cache more than anything.

check reviews for these things:

- picture quality (particularly at the long end around 300mm, it is usually quite poor in these cheaper lenses, but some do OK)
- focus speed (i suspect the tamron is slow and noisy, though i haven't used that particular lens)
- minimum focusing distance (this will be important if you want to do any quasi-macro work. eg all of the lenses lenses zoom to 300mm, but one may focus only at a distance of at least 1.5m away, which means you cant really get up close and personal with flowers, insects etc)

Also, consider purchasing an image-stabilised lens (that is if your body doesn't already have it). It is particularly useful at 200mm and above: otherwise you will be forced to shoot at shutter speeds faster than 1/320 (or, at 300mm, closer to 1/500). This can be quite prohibitive, especially when they are all 'slow' (f/5.6) lenses.

 

[jack]

hm found some review about the said lenses
and looked for the your listed points
the sony seems to out do its two competitors in those categories
it performs "bad" in low light, but i am okay with that

 

[Germaniac]

hm found some review about the said lenses
and looked for the your listed points
the sony seems to out do its two competitors in those categories
it performs "bad" in low light, but i am okay with that

hmm i think all those lenses would perform almost identically in low light as they are all f/4-f/5.6 lenses. this means they all let in the same amount of light...which is not very much. a 'fast' lens (f/2.8) would let in 2-3x the amount of light. they are also 2-3x more expensive, at least.

The only reason the Sony would perform worse in low light is if it had a sub-par autofocusing system, which would cause it to 'hunt' in low light (the lens would find it very difficult to focus). however i would imagine it would have the best AF system of the three, judging by the price, but as i said i am not familiar with it.

does your camera body have in-built image stabilisation? just to repeat, image stabilisation is very nice to have in a longer lens; you will find it very restrictive without.

what are you planning to use the lens for mainly?

 

[jack]

does your camera body have in-built image stabilisation? just to repeat, image stabilisation is very nice to have in a longer lens; you will find it very restrictive without.

what are you planning to use the lens for mainly?

jap it has in-built image stabilisation

outdoor shots- landscapes, cars/birds

...i also have the option to buy a used minolta lense
Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i used it already with my cam and it worked really good(at least out of the eye of an amateur)
but it would mean some more negotiations...cause the owner currently exceeds the price of the sony(by far)

 

[Germaniac]

jap it has in-built image stabilisation

outdoor shots- landscapes, cars/birds

...i also have the option to buy a used minolta lense
Minolta AF 70-210mm f/4 lens - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
i used it already with my cam and it worked really good(at least out of the eye of an amateur)
but it would mean some more negotiations...cause the owner currently exceeds the price of the sony(by far)

Looks like a great choice. High build quality, higher max aperture (f/4 throughout the zoom range, which means it will let in double the amount of light @ 210mm), good image quality, etc. There will be forums around, no doubt, that will tell you what to look out for (some older lenses have mould and dust issues, for example), but from what I can see it looks like a pretty good option.

As far as the price goes, it's honestly probably worth more than the new lenses so I am not surprised he is asking more. Lenses are the sort of thing that never really lose value if they are a well-regarded model, as this is. Due to the fact that their performance never really deteriorates, people are happy to buy second hand which means demand (and ultimately cost) stays high. If you can bargain him down, do so, but I would be prepared to spend more on that lens than the others as you are getting a much better package and will definitely notice the difference.

By the way, the wiki link you provided says thus:

"As of 2009, frequently available second-hand on auction websites at prices ranging between £120 and £150."

Hope that has helped.